ABSTRACT In this manuscript, we invite the field of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) to interrogate our relationship with society at large, consider the perspective of queer scientists, and take action to produce more accurate and objective science. Science and society continuously shape one another; this relationship determines what science is funded, which inquiries are pursued, and whose voices are included in the production and dissemination of knowledge. In EEB, many scientists have worked to address biases that originated from and were legitimized by societal norms. Here, we investigate this science‐society relationship further by exploring how this relationship has historically impacted and continually impacts LGBTQ+ people. Using illustrative examples, we discuss societal trends and their influence on science over time, current biases in interpreting data, and the downstream impacts on policy. To move beyond inclusion to an epistemological intervention, we propose a framework that expands the conceptual boundaries of what is considered scientific knowledge and actively considers the political dimensions of research inquiries. We draw on our queer lived experiences to outline six principles to confront existing biases and produce better science: (1) recognize intersections between systems of oppression; (2) incorporate queer knowledges into scientific thought; (3) challenge biased (e.g., binary, deterministic) frameworks; (4) understand that language and hypothesis framing shape both science and its societal interpretation; (5) embed ethics and political responsibility in the development of research inquiries; (6) accept that we do not need answers for everything. To implement these principles, we provide guidance for individual and collective actions in the classroom, academic societies, and research. By integrating these principles within mainstream scientific practice, we can strengthen the reciprocal relationship between science and society, where advances in one transform the other, collectively moving towards knowledge that is more accurate, reproducible, and inclusive.
Eppley et al. (Sun,) studied this question.